Change Your Image
caw001
Reviews
Arena (2002)
Not Bad...
(Note: I have not seen any shows with the previous hosts. Therefore, I'm not qualified to judge how good the show is in relation to previous incarnations. I can only talk about how good the show is in general.) "Arena" is a perfectly mediocre show on G4 that some will love, and others will absolutely loathe. It features teams of gamers competing against each other in multi-player games in a tournament-style match up. Honestly, watching other people play video games is a slight step above watching other people play golf. But hey, some people like it. I personally found it to be okay, but in games like Unreal Tournament (which I have zero familiarity with), the action can move so fast that it's difficult to keep up.
The show treats video games with respect, like it is a real sport. The commentators, Lee and Kevin, do a decent job of summarizing the action for people who can't follow it (like me), but they can easily go off on a tangent and risk leaving the audience behind in the dust. Basically, they are there to make sure that the people watching have just enough of a grasp on the action to understand who is winning, which is really all you need to know.
Overall, the show is mildly entertaining video game fare from a network that is increasingly dropping its video game content. If you're flipping by G4, it's worth at least 5 minutes.
Sin City (2005)
Superbly Entertaining
After watching Sin City, I can only say one word that properly sums up the experience: wow. Sadly, the rest of this review will be just an expansion on that.
The film, co-directed by Robert Rodriguez and comic book legend Frank Miller, tells a story not really about people, but about the town that has trapped them. Sin City is a grueling Gotham ripped right out of the deepest, darkest regions of film noir. The formula for Sin City is to take everything you know about the noir genre and take it to the 10th power. All the cops and politicians are corrupt. All the women are strippers and/or prostitutes, and everyone will shoot you in the face without thinking twice. Against this backdrop, stories of hope, redemption, and revenge are told, and notice that I said "stories". This film doesn't have a linear plot, but rather ping-pongs between various short stories for two hours. That might be enough to scare away the casual moviegoer, but those who do walk in to see Sin City will be glad they did.
One of the first things people will notice about the film is its unique visual style. Rodriguez really pulled no punches in trying to make this film an almost picture perfect adaptation of Miller's comic book, and it works to amazing results. There were times where I thought that the storyboard artist just cut out panels from a Sin City graphic novel. As a comic book fan, although not really familiar with the Sin City comics, I like to believe that movies are movies and comics are comics. I've seen attempts to try and bridge the two mediums (ahem
"Hulk," ahem
) and I've seen them fail, too. In this movie, Rodriguez takes his cue from the comics themselves, making his movie look like a comic, but feel like a movie. The film incorporates comic book aesthetics, but doesn't use the same self-referential techniques that basically wink at the audience. And I know that everyone is praising how good the movie looks, but this is the most stunning movie of 2005. You can't watch it and not be awed.
Also, a part of the visual style of the film is that Rodriguez chose to graphically show many moments of violence. I'm a strong supporter of the leaving of extremely graphic violence to the imagination. While it does add to the shock value and the "in-your-face" attitude of the film, some parts were just plain gross and could've been left out. I mean, honestly, I don't need to see Bruce Willis tear Nick Stahl's genitals off, no matter how brief the shot is.The black and white (sometimes) color palate of the film really emphasizes the violence. There is very little grey in the movie, giving everything a hard, edgy look. Rodriquez uses color in his frames like an artist, in order to make the ideas pop. Sometimes, blood is traditional red, contrasting with the hard blacks and whites, but some other times, excess blood is colorized paper white. It's jarring, drawing the eye to it, and yet still leaving the viewer thinking, "God, this is so cool!"
The movie has a lot of star power, but all the characters aren't that different from each other. As stated earlier, the movie uses a lot of conventions of the film noir genre, and if you know what you're looking for, the movie will feel like a walking genre convention. A lot of the actors speak in the same, monotone voice that would be confusing if I weren't looking at who was speaking. And I'll admit; I like seeing women who can kick butt. However, when every single woman who appears on screen looks beautiful and is competent with many styles of firearms, it gets a little repetitive. Plus, the obligatory voice-overs are present in all stories. Once again, the casual moviegoer might find these conventions annoying.
But in the heat of the moment, while watching the movie, you're just captivated by what's going on on screen. I love the sense of "hope sprung from hopelessness" that appears to populate most Distopias like Sin City. And I think that's what keeps the movie compelling. Visually, yes, it's captivating, but a movie that's all flash and no bang won't stay with you like Sin City will. This film has substance: the tragic nature of Sin City itself mixed with characters you care about, albeit some more than others.
I loved this movie. There are some parts I can nitpick at, like the feeling I get that the film went past its natural ending to tie up a loose end I didn't care about, but for the most part, I think this is one of the best comic book films ever made. It's not "Citizen Kane", but the biggest achievement of this film is that there is no other film like it.
From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)
From Good to Awful
You know, before this movie, I never thought that Quentin Tarantino could've been involved in anything bad. Well my friends, I have seen the devil, and its name is From Dusk Till Dawn.
This movie follows the rest of Tarantino's catalog and centers around a couple of lowlife thugs. In this case, it's the Gecko brothers, Seth and Ritchie (George Clooney and Tarantino himself). They're on the run from the law and about to cross the border into Mexico and Freedom. Their ticket out is the Fuller family (Harvey Keitel, Ernest Liu, and Juliette Lewis) also heading into Mexico. The Gecko brothers take the family hostage and, after making it across the border, hang out at the designated meeting place: a topless bar.
Now for the fun part. It turns out that the bar is a late-nite hangout for vampires. And guess who's on the menu tonight?
Appalled yet? I am. It's not that I'm against the idea in the first place, but these are two different movies duct taped together by one dance sequence. Sorry guys, it just doesn't work.
When watching this movie, I felt like I was driving in a car that, for no reason whatsoever, suddenly jumped into a higher gear and took off at full speed. The first hour of the movie was more than watchable; it was pretty damn good. I loved the characters of the Gecko brothers and I thought that the movie would be about the conflict between the calm, calculating Seth and the unpredictable Ritchie, who will shoot or rape whomever he pleases. In fact, when he first sees Juliette Lewis' character, he imagines her asking him for oral sex. Ritchie, in my mind, was the time bomb of the movie, waiting to go off and throw the plot into a tailspin. Whoo boy, was I wrong.
The second hour of the movie is the schlockiest of horror films you've ever seen. After seeing Robert Rodriguez' "Sin City", I knew that he had a taste for on screen violence. Well, this movie is more of the same. The vampires of the movie are the best that 1996 special effects could produce. That doesn't really say much, but man, are they gory. People's arms are ripped off their bodies, heads are hollowed out by shotguns, and one vampire is vanquished by having his heart ripped from his body and staked by a toothpick. Fun wow, huh?
The first half of the movie had Tarantino's trademark element of humor. For instance, the first time we see Seth and Ritchie, they are trying to get out of a liquor store that a cop has just entered. Once the cop leaves to relieve himself, Seth and Ritchie, guns drawn, start having a discussion about whether or not the clerk tipped the cop off. It's hilariously funny and timed to perfection. Those first scenes should set the tone for the rest of the movie. And as I've probably spent too much time belaboring, halfway through, the film takes a sharp left turn. Over a bridge. Down a ravine. And into a tar pit.
I wouldn't be so livid if the second half of the movie was well done. The vampire sequences in From Dusk Till Dawn have all been done before in other vampire movies, and frankly, the new parts just don't make any sense. While watching the film, I counted the following elements that caused my jaw to hit the floor, only to be reeled back up and let go again: 1. A cross composed of a shotgun and a baseball bat. 2. A hydraulic stake 3. A Holy Water Super Soaker (Can you say "Bordello of Blood"?) 4. Characters having personal moments while being devoured hoagie-style by vampires. 5. A mariachi band that, at the moment of truth, morphs into a band of mutants with bloody corpses for instruments. 6. Lines like "Okay Vampire Killers, let's kill some f***ing vampires!" 7. Multiple appearances by Cheech Marin.
See what I mean? What isn't tired is plain ridiculous. And there are more examples of absurdity in this movie. You could find them yourself, but don't say I didn't warn you.
Harvey Keitel, who's had a history with Tarantino, plays Jacob Fuller, a priest who lost his faith in God when his wife died. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this character or how he's portrayed, but tell me this, why is it that whenever there is a story concerning evil or Satanic creatures, the local priest chooses to question his faith then? Juliette Lewis plays his daughter. Honestly, I wish I could've gotten to know her better. Lewis is a very talented and beautiful actress, but I guess when you're stuck with a part that is basically a young girl reacting to the situation around her, it's like putting a ballet dancer in a full-body cast. The only defining personality trait about her is that she gets really good with a crossbow when the going gets tough. I mean, really, she's like the Teenage Terminator! (Not a bad idea.) And I can't really call it a "defining" personality trait because everyone gets it at the same time in this movie.
"From Dusk Till Dawn" just plain does not work. Tarantino and Rodriguez are very talented filmmakers, and they've proved that time and time again, but they have given both their resumes a black eye with this mutated hybrid of "Reservoir Dogs" and "Assault on Precinct 13." If you value the works of either person, avoid this movie like the vampires it portrays.
The Shadow (1994)
An entertaining film, but could've been better
"The Shadow" is one of those movies that you love to watch, but there are certain things that irk you every time.
My main problem with the film is that it moves too fast without any real knowledge of the characters. The main offender here is the first 5 - 10 minutes of the film, which are crucial to hooking an audience. We're introduced to Lamont Cranston as a villain and 10 minutes later, he's come full circle. It doesn't feel right, and I have no clue who he is, how he got there, and why he's so darn important. I will admit that the business with the knife was really cool, though. But there's a better way to do it. Introduce Cranston as the Shadow, the hero, and do the rest of the back story in flashbacks as he searches through his mind. Also, don't put a time-saving title after the opening credits; it feels like a cop-out.
Another casualty to this flaw is Khan. I know now that Khan was a recurring villain in the mythology of "The Shadow," but when watching the film, I didn't have a clue about him. The first interaction he has with the Shadow is a casual conversation. That doesn't set up any real tension between the characters. I would much rather see the villain/hero relationship played out like "Batman," where the villain has no prior knowledge of the hero and learns to hate him throughout the course of the film.
The film does find its feet by the end. Plus there are a few things that I love about this movie. The visual representation of the Shadow himself was really well done. I liked the voice and the trick of him appearing briefly in a haze to punch somebody. That was good stuff. The humor was well done, although a little on the heavy side.
All in all, I didn't feel cheated by this film. There were a few story and visual elements that got on my nerves (for instance, NEVER shoot Tim Curry in a tight shot from a high angle. It makes him look like a mutant.) but in the end, I enjoyed watching the film. I'd grade it a solid B.